They're imported from dozens of foreign countries. Putin acknowledged their involvement. He raised concerns. "Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria," he asked?

Since conflict erupted in March 2011, Russia urged "peaceful dialogue" resolution, Putin said. Syrians alone should determine their future. International law must be respected.

"We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos," Putin stressed.

"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not."

"Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council."

"Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression."

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria," he added. He pointed fingers the right way. Government forces never used chemical weapons any time.

They weren't involved in what happened on August 21 in Ghouta. "(T)here is every reason to believe opposition forces" bear full responsibility, said Putin.

They did so "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with (extremist) fundamentalists."

Reports indicate they're "preparing another attack - this time against Israel." They "cannot be ignored."

"Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us.' "

Force is "ineffective and pointless," Putin stressed. "Afghanistan is reeling." Libya and Iraq are cauldrons of violence.

He's "been many things to (Obama): a partner at times, an irritant more often, the host of the elusive Edward J. Snowden, and 'the bored kid in the back of the classroom' who offered so little on the administration's foreign policy goals that Mr. Obama canceled plans to hold a summit meeting in Moscow last week."

He's "offering a potential, if still highly uncertain, alternative to what he has vocally criticized as America's militarism and reasserted Russian interests in a region where it had been marginalized since the collapse of the Soviet Union," said The Times.

He "handed a diplomatic lifeline to his longtime" Syrian ally. He slowed Obama's rage for war. He bought time. He did so to give peace a chance. He faces long odds to achieve it.

Eureasia Group president Ian Bremmer said "Putin probably had his best day as president in years yesterday."

It didn't stop The Times from railing against him. They do it repeatedly. They do it unconscionably.

"When Mr. Putin returned to the presidency a year ago," The Times said, "he moved aggressively to stamp out a growing protest movement and silence competing and independent voices."

"He shored up his position at home but, as his government promoted nationalism with a hostile edge, passed antigay legislation, locked up illegal immigrants in a city camp, kept providing arms to the Syrian government and ultimately gave refuge to the leaker Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin was increasingly seen in the West as a calloused, out-of-touch modern-day czar."

Now (he's) relishing" the role of "statesman." He's that and much more on resolving Syria's crisis diplomatically. Don't expect The Times to explain.

Not according to The Times. He "us(ed) (his) veto repeatedly to block any meaningful" Security Council action, it said.

He's "intent on opposing the United States regardless of any contrary facts or evidence."

The Times failed to point out any justifying its statement." It can't. None exists.

"Mr. Putin's palpable hostility to what he views as the supersized influence of the United States around the world explains much of the anti-American sentiment that he and his supporters have stoked since he returned as president last year," it said.

He temporarily succeeded in elevating diplomacy over force. Doing so "carries the risk of Russia (vetoing) any security council resolution that would back up the international control over Syria's weapons with the threat of force, as France proposed."

The Times backs Obama's agenda. It supports ousting Assad. It endorses war to do so. It opposes Putin's peace initiative.

CNN headlined "White House responds to Putin's NYT op-ed." It did so through the cable channel's chief Washington correspondent Jake Tapper.

He called Putin's comments "stern (and) standoffish." The White House said "(h)e put (his) proposal forward and he's now invested in it. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver."

Tapper left what's most important unsaid. Obama wants war. He intends to get it. His plans are slowed. They're not deterred.

He'll go all out to obstruct Putin's peace initiative. He'll blame Russia's president for doing it. So will supportive media scoundrels.

Longstanding US plans call for ousting Assad. Replacing Syrian sovereignty with pro-Western subservient governance is prioritized. War is Obama's option to do so.

Putin's initiative changes nothing. Obama's war machine intends pursuing what it does best. It wants Syria entirely ravaged and destroyed.